ABHAYA SAMANTARAY Vs. THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions arise out of a common cause of action and in view of common pleading involved in both the writ petitions having same cause of action in both the writ petitions can be decided together by a common judgment. Hence, we proceed to decide both the above writ petitions together. Pleadings as involved in W.P.(C) No. 6748 of 2014 is that petitioner was an applicant against the Tender Process in the matter of auction of a Sand Sairat at Talapada for a period of one year. Petitioner became the highest bidder to the aforesaid Sand Sairat for the year 2013-2014. As assessed, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 15.03.2013, the full and final amount involved in the bid. It is alleged by the petitioner that even though the amount involved was deposited on 15.03.2013 yet the opposite party No. 3 could not obtain the Environmental Clearance till end of August, 2013 and ultimately the opposite party No. 3 could obtain the Environment Clearance on 04.09.2013. After the Environmental Clearance was obtained, petitioner approached the opposite parties for issuing the "R" Form for extraction of sand immediately. It is alleged by the petitioner that the matter was delayed at the hand of the opposite parties and ultimately after issuing the Form "R" on 28.12.2013, the Tahasildar directed the petitioner to execute the agreement within 3 days but again due to paucity of time with the Competent Authority the agreement could not be finalized. But ultimately petitioner was allowed to operate the Sand Sairat from December, 2013 making period of lease valid up to 31.03.2014. Petitioner alleged that the authorities did not act in terms of Rule 36 and Rule 53 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short 'the OMMC Rules, 2004') and by not allowing the petitioner to operate for one year, the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced and suffer financially. Thus in filing the 1st writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 6748 of 2014] the petitioner sought for direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to operate the particular Sand Sairat for a period of one year from the date of execution of the agreement. Petitioner alleged that during pendency of the above writ the opposite parties without considering the request of the petitioner to allow him to operate for one year from the date of actual commencement proceeded for bringing out a fresh auction notice dated 09.05.2014 as available at Annexure-7 in the W.P.(C) No. 9323 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner challenging the fresh auction notice in connection with the very same Sand Sairat. The petitioner by filing the above writ petition again sought for a direction from this Court for quashing the fresh auction notice dated 09.05.2014 and at the same time directing the opposite party No. 3 therein to extend the time of operation of Sairat for full term of one year following a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28583 of 2013.

(2.) Per contra pending consideration of the writ petitions opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 6748 of 2014 inter alia contending therein that up set price for particular bid (Sand Sairat source at Talapada) for the year 2013-14 was fixed and approved by the Sub-collector, Puri @ Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) vide order dated 04.02.2013. Petitioner being found as the highest bidder, the bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.03.2013. Opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted that the petitioner had deposited the balance bid price on 15.03.2013 along with the security deposits. These opposite parties contended that even though form "R" permitting the petitioner to operate the source with effect from 01.04.2013 by issuing form "R" on 21.03.2013 but the same could not be made effective as the Environmental Clearance was granted by Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide letter dated 28.08.2013 and even though the petitioner was asked to execute the agreement vide letters dated 16.12.2013 and 28.12.2013 but petitioner proceed with operate the source without executing any agreement till 31.03.2014. Considering the bid period to be from 01.04.2013 till 31.03.2014, the opposite parties submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue after 31.03.2014 and after expiring of bid period the opposite parties have already gone for another advertisement for auctioning the very Sand Sairat for 2014-2015 by giving of for a fresh advertisement. It is in these premises, the opposite parties claimed for dismissal of the 1st writ petition for there being no illegality committed by the opposite parties and in view of fresh advertisement, there is scope for interfering in the 1st writ as well as in the 2nd writ petition.

(3.) There is no denial to the fact that the period of bid involved was 2013-2014. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder in the alleged auction process and bid was also knocked down in his favour by issuing a letter dated 15.03.2013. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioner has deposited the balance bid amount on 15.03.2013 along with security deposits. Rule 36 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 speaks of validity of auction and Rule 53 of the above Rule speaks for an agreement in the matter between the parties, Rules 36 and Rule 53 of the OMMC Rule, 2004 reads as follows:-